T.7. What Is Fencing (to 1900)?

The most basic question that we can ask about fencing is "what is fencing?"  How this question is answered by the authors of fencing texts is important, not only as a definition, but also as a basic doctrinal statement about what it is that we do with the point (foil and epee) and counter-point (sabre) weapons.  Logically we should expect the question to be asked and the answer given at the start of any text in order to frame the following discussion of techniques and tactics.   However, a perusal of a number of fencing texts (either English language or translations - this sample is a convenience one) from the period up to 1900 shows that that is not the case.  Those that do include:

• Roux, F. A. W. L. (1849): "teaches us to use the sharp weapon skillfully.  This means to parry cuts and thrusts., disarm the same or through proper attacks, that is those which prevent him from attacking us while we thrust or cut to wound or subjugate, such that he may not harm us with his weapon.
• Chapman (1861): "scheme upon which the recognized method of attack and defence is founded."
• Merlo y Casademunt (1862): "that which contains the necessary rules for handling of all known cutting and thrusting weapons; this being its only and principal objective; that the individual who uses them acquires the necessary resources to offend and defend."
• De Bazancourt (1862): identifies three styles of fencing, as a gymnastic exercise, as an exact science, and for self-protection.
• Chalaupka (1875): "the study of the appropriate use of thrusting or cutting weapons used in individual combat." 
• Parise (1884): "Fencing, generally speaking, consists of tempo, velocity, and measure; that is, it is necessary to choose the correct moment for the execution of an action, uniting the choice of tempo to the proper velocity and striking at that measure which will be enough to touch the opponent."
• Schneider (1887): "the teaching of the functional use of the thrust- and cut-weapon in single combat; it gives us the means to attack our opponent with artful skill, as well as the necessary skill to reject their attack.
• Sanz (1888): "the art which teaches us to injure the adversary, avoiding that he injures us."
• Grove (see Pollock) (1890): "the art of giving without receiving"
• Rondelle (1892):  defines fencing as a "science," but does not reveal what that science is.
• La Marche (1898) does not directly pose the answer but described fencing in the terms of: "the conception, the execution, the speed and a sense of the appropriate ..." with execution being of an idea, a plan.

From these definitions or explanations is it possible to develop a common basic doctrinal statement of the intent of fencing in the early classical period?  The following list of themes is the first step:

• a science or art - (science) De Bazancourt, Rondelle - (art) Sanz, Grove
• use of white weapons (the cutting or thrusting weapons) - Roux, Merlo y Casademunt, Chalaupka, Schneider
• defense (parrying cuts or thrusts) - Roux, Chapman, Merlo y Casademunt, Schneider
• disarming - Roux
• offense (proper attacks) - Roux, Chapman, Merlo y Casademunt, Schneider
• hitting without being injured - Roux, Sanz, Grove
• a standard scheme or rules or appropriate use - Chapman, Merlo y Casademunt, Chalaupka, La Marche
• individual combat -  Chalaupka
• correct moment of execution - Parise
• teaching or study - Schneider, Roux, Chalaupka

So, if we craft a doctrinal statement incorporating these themes that describes classical fencing before 1900, we arrive at something like the following:

"Fencing is the science of the use of white weapons in individual combat incorporating offense and defense at the correct moment according to their appropriate use to hit an opponent while minimizing the chances of being hit.  Likewise, it is the teaching and study of the science." 

Sources:

Chalaupka, Franz; A Guide for teaching Saber-Fencing; translation by Richard Barberie; [fencing manual]; Karl Prochaska, Vienna, Austria-Hungary; 1875; translation reprinted by Richard Barberie as Fanz Chalaupka's Sabre Fencing; no place; 2021.

Chapman, George; Foil Practice, with a Review of the Art of Fencing;" [fencing Manual]; W. Clowes and Sons, London, United Kingdom; 1861.

De Bazancourt, Cesar; Secrets of the Sword; [fencing manual]; translation by C. F. Clay; Laureate Press, Bangor, Maine, United States of America; first published in French in 1862, translated 1900, Laureate Press publication 1998.

La Marche, Claude; The Dueling Sword; translation by Brian House; [fencing manual]; Ernest Flammarion; Paris, France; reprinted by Paladin Press, Boulder, Colorado, United States of America; 1898 reprinted 2009.

Merelo y Casedemunt, Jose; Manual of Fencing: Compilation of the Most Principal Techniques that Constitute the True Fencing of the Spanish Saber and of the Foil; translation by John Jakelsky; [fencing manual]; Typography Establishment of R. Labajos, Madrid, Spain; translated and reprinted by John Jakelsky, Xativa, Valencia, Spain; 1878, reprinted 2019.

Parise, Masaniello; Treatise on the Fencing of the Sword and Sabre; in The Roman-Neapolitan School of Fencing: The Collected Works of Masaniello Parise, Maestro di Scherma; translation by Christopher A. Holzman; [collected works]; Christopher A. Holzman, Wichita, Kansas, United States of America; 1884 reprinted as a collected work 2015.

Pollock, Walter H., F. C. Grove, and Camille Prevost; Fencing; 2^nd edition; in the Badminton Library of Sports and Pastimes; [fencing manual]; Longman’s, Green, and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1890.

Rondelle, Louis; Foil and Sabre: A Grammar of Fencing in Detailed Lessons for Professor and Pupil; [fencing manual]; Estes and Lauriat, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America; 1892.

Roux, Friedrich August Wilhelm Ludwig; Die Kreussler'sche Stossfechtschule for Use by Academies and Military Schools Based on a Mathematical Basis; translation by Christopher Treichel; [fencing manual]; Druck and Verlag von Friedrich Mauke, Jena, Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, Germany; translated and reprinted by Christopher Treichel; 1849, reprinted 2016. 

Sanz, Adelardo [translation by John Jakelsky]; Saber Fencing and Considerations About the Duel; [fencing manual]; first published in Spanish by Imprenta de Fortanet, Madrid, Spain; 1886; translated edition published by John Jakelsky, Xativa, Valencia, Spain; 2020.

Schneider, Friedrich; Friedrich Schneider's Infantry Saber; translation by Jeremy Steflik; [fencing manual]; Nydegger and Baimgart, Berne, Switzerland; reprint by Jeremy Steflik, East Haddam, Connecticut, United States of America; 1887, reprint 2018.

Copyright 2022 by Walter G. Green III

What Is Fencing (to 1900)? by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

W.4. Parts of the Weapon - Foil

Foils, sabres, and epees are built up of parts.  When you purchase a complete weapon, you have weapon that was assembled by either the manufacturer or the vendor from a set of parts.  If you are the sort of person who likes to know what they are fencing with, it makes sense to know what these parts are and what they do.  There are four distinct patterns of foils (not including the wide range of orthopaedic grips) in use in the classical period: Italian, French, Spanish, and German.

In general discussions of the structure of the foil are based on two systems - the blade consisting of the parts of the blade and the Hilt consisting of everything from the guard or bell back to the pommel.

The Blade

The blade in all four Schools covered here is generally similar, with three exceptions.  The blade can be characterized as having the following parts:

• Length - determining length is difficult because of varying measurements of lengths as we enter the classical period.   For example, Italian blades in Naples and Sicily were measured in palmi - 4 palmi (approximately 38 inches in Naples and Sicily and either 3.6 palmi (34.8 inches) or 3.5 palmi (33 inches) in the rest of Italy.  Examples of German thrust fencing blades have a length of 34.5 inches (starting from 28.25 inches in a 1760 specimen).  We do not have specific data from Spanish School weapons, but photographs suggest that they were in the 34 t0 35 inch range.  French School weapons were as long as 34 inches in 1875; in 1889 they were specified as 33 to 34 inches in length, and 1892 they were not to exceed 35 inches.
• Button - a covering of leather tied in place with cord, in more modern times rubber, or, for the fencer on a budget, athletic tape.  The purpose of the button was to protect the opponent and their uniform from being cut by the edges of the nail head.
• Point - underneath the button, the actual rebated point resembling the head of a nail or some other shape. 
• A number of divisions or grades appropriate to the doctrine of the fencing School (see blog post W.1. How Many Sections to the Foil Blade? ... June 2019 ... and W.2. Additions to the Number of Sections to the Blade ... December 2021).
• Two flats and 2 edges - generally only discussed in Italian fencing.  The flats are the width of the blade, evident when the blade is laid on a table with the wide part of the blade upward.  The two edges are named based on the nearest arch - the edge next to the arch on the true edge of the sword is the inside edge.  The edge next to the arch on the false edge of the sword is the outside edge 
• Balance - the center of gravity of the weapon as a point on the blade ranging from immediately forward of the bell of four fingers from the bell (see W.3. Balance Point of the Blade ...  December 2021).
• Shoulder - the junction of the blade and the tang that rests either on the guard or on a rosette. Found in French foil blades.
• Ricasso - found only in the Italian foil, a flat and somewhat widened section of the blade between the guard and the crossbar. 
• Neck - the square portion of tang starting at the shoulder and ending at the round portion of the tang. Typically, it fits securely in the bell and forward portion of the grip to ensure a secure fit and to prevent the blade twisting in the grip. 
• Tang - the extension of the blade to the pommel.  Various methods were used to secure the tang in the pommel including hammering the end of the tang flat over the end of the opening in the pommel, systems of slotted screws that moved in a channel in the pommel and into which the tang was screwed, to eventually directly screwing the pommel onto the tang.  The tang is alternatively referred to as the Tongue in one source of French origin.

The French Hilt 

The French hilt was distinguished by a wide number of variants, including: lunette or figure 8 guards, lens shaped guards, circular bells of various diameters, and rectangular guards.  However, in general, the French hilt is the simplest of the hilts described in this post.

• Rosette - a metal rosette or circle in front of the guard and at the base of the shoulder that serves either a decorative purpose or provides structural support. 
• Bell - the bell is a domed guard of various heights that is pierced for the ricasso of the blade, protects the hand, and performs a role in closing the line and parrying.
• Thumb pad - a thumb pad of felt, leather, or similar material is located on the blade inside the bell to cushion blows to the hand.
• Martingale - loop of leather or cord fastened between the thumb pad and the grip with the purpose of preventing a dropped or disarmed weapon from injuring the Jury or spectators or other fencers.  One source indicated that the martingale helped in the execution of the coupe.  Although the rules of fencing required a martingale a late as 1968 for non-electric weapons, it's use was by no means universal. 
• Grip - typically a wooden grip wrapped in cord. The grip was often supplied as a straight grip aligned with an unbent tang - a most uncomfortable lack of cant to the weapon which reduces the ability to effectively employ finger play.  The tang should be bent so that grip can be held effectively in the hand. 
• Pommel - the pommel secures the blade and is tightened to secure the hilt and the blade together.  Pommels on French weapons could be found in a variety of decorative designs.

The Italian Fioretto Hilt 

The Italian fioretto had a structurally more complicated form of guard and grip than the French foil and the German thrust rappier.  It also was distinguished by a wide number of variants, including: different size guards, arches, rectangular arches, and crossbars, the cross bar at an angle to make it easier to hold, and grips straight or shaped to conform to the hand.  

The basic common elements of structure:

• Bell (coccia) - the bell is a domed guard of various heights that is pierced for the ricasso of the blade, protects the hand, and performs a role in closing the line and parrying.
• Lip (rivettino) - older Italian guards can be found with a lip, a narrow rim that faces forward on the guard with the intent of catching the point of the opponent's blade.
• Arches (archetti) - two circular arches, oriented on the same axis as the cross bar, join the bell and the crossbar.  The height of the arches is determined by the length of the ricasso.   
• Crossbar (gavigliano) - the cross bar includes connections to the arches and a channel in its center to meet the bottom of the ricasso, pass the tang through the crossbar, and to seat the forward end of the grip.
• Note that the bell, arches, and crossbar form an integrated whole with the arches and crossbar either constructed as a unit or welded together.  The bell may be rivetted to the termination of the arches.
• Thumb pad (cuscinetto)- a thumb pad of felt, leather, or similar material is located on the ricasso inside the bell to cushion blows to the hand.
• Grip (manico) - the grip is straight and noticeably shorter than that of the French grip. 
• Knuckle Bow - the knuckle-bow is a metal bow starting at the crossbar moving generally outward from the crossbar, parallel to the grip, and ending curving in the to pommel.  It provides additional protection to the hand and fingers.  When the hand is in Italian hand position 1 it is upward, position 2 to the inside, position 3 downward, and position 4 to the outside.  This distinguishes an older pattern weapon, although its use continues well into the classical period.
• Pommel (pomo) - a cone shaped pommel secures the blade and is tightened to secure the hilt (guardia) and the blade (lama) together.
• Binding - the Italian foil can be bound to the hand and wrist with a handkerchief, cord, or leather strap.  This is an individual choice to increase power and maintain control, and not all Italian fencers used such a binding.  However, when it was used it became an essential adjunct to the weapon.

The Italian hilt is held with the thumb on the ricasso, the index finger below the ricasso so that these two fingers provide the control for movement of the blade.  The middle finger slides around and behind the crossbar so that its upper digits rest at the inside intersection of the crossbar and ricasso.  The remaining two fingers, with the middle finger, provide for a strong grip of the grip.

The German Kreusslerian Thrust Fencing School

The typical thrust rappier (foil) has a distinctive guard which at first glance would appear to be Italian.  However:

• The bell is circular, but shallower, allowing approximately a thumb's width of distance between the guard and the crossbar at the center, or flat.  
• There are no arches, just a crossbar.  In most cases the crossbar is secured to the bell. 
• The blade typically does not have a ricasso.   
• The handle is straight and often shorter than the French grip, typically with a round pommel.  

When in the hand, the thumb is on the top of the grip, and the index finger is aligned along and hooking over the crossbar, a very different hand position than found in Italian technique.  

At the end of the 1800s, the German association of Fencing Masters is reported to have declared that the French grip was incompatible with German thrust fencing.

The Spanish School Foil

Maestro Adelardo Sanz's original design for the foil for the Spanish School survives in its patent application.  

• The original foil guard featured a four lobed guard with each lobe extending backward for some distance (top, bottom, inside, outside).  The guard eventually became similar to the standard guard used in French Foil, possibly as a manufacturing and cost decision.
• The grip is straight, extending from the inside surface of the guard back to the pommel.
• The grip is held in position by a circular opening in the cross guard.
• The crossbar is bent with two 90 degree turns and is oriented from the top lobe to the bottom lobe, with the top of the crossbar following a semi-circle to the outside so that the thumb can remain on the top side of the handle.
• The two resulting divisions of the space behind the guard are larger (to accommodate the thumb) on the top, and smaller on the bottom.
• The pommel is a standard foil pommel.

The configuration of this grip and guard results in a normal hand position of thumb up (Italian 3rd hand position).  There are a number of variants during the lifetime of this guard and grip with the different configurations of the handle and the crossbar being fitted to the handle.  

The Parts and the School

This variety of parts shows the variety of approaches of the different Schools of fencing to the components of the weapon.  Just like in any other elements of a School, when you start building your own weapons from parts, it is important to keep the final product authentic to the practice of your School. It is physically possible to build an Italian foil with no arches or crossbar, but why would you want to?  The end product would not handle the way that either the French or Italian Schools would consider appropriate for a foil.

Sources:

Amberger, J. Christoph; "Old School: Four Kreußlerian Foils; [Internet article]; at https://fencingclassics.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/old-school-four-kreuslerian-foils/; 9 May 2016.

Amberger, J. Christoph; "Rappier, Stossfectel, Florett: A German foil, latter half of the 19th century"; [magazine article]; Fencer's Quarterly Magazine, Volume 8 Number 1/2/3, Summer/Fall/Winter 2003; page 68.

Bacarreza, Leonardo; Some Biographical Notes about Adelardo Sanz from Spanish Newspapers; [monograph]; Classical Academy of Arms, Glen Allen, Virginia, United States of America; 2016.

Barbasetti, Luigi; The Art of the Foil; [fencing manual]; E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America; 1932.

Castello Fencing Equipment Company; Catalog; [fencing equipment catalog]; New York, New York, United States of America; 1936.

Castille Armory; "Build Your Own Smarra: 18th-19th Century Smarra"; [Internet product advertisement]; at castilearmory.com/product/build-your-own-smarra; accessed 2 December 2021.

Collmore Dunn, H. A.; Fencing; [fencing manual]; George Bell and Sons, London, United Kingdom; 1889.

Monstery, Thomas Hoyer; Self-Defense for Gentlemen and Ladies; edited by Ben Miller; [combatives manual]; Blue Snake Books, Berkeley, California, United States of America; 2015.

Parise, Masaniello; Treatise on the Fencing of the Sword and Sabre; in The Roman-Neapolitan School of Fencing: The Collected Works of Masaniello Parise, Maestro di Scherma; translation by Christopher A. Holzman; [collected works]; Christopher A. Holzman, Wichita, Kansas, United States of America; 1884 reprinted as a collected work 2015.

Rossi, Giordano; Theoretical-Practical Manual for Sword and Sabre Fencing; translation by Sebastian Seager; [fencing manual];  Milan, Italy, translated edition by the Melbourne Fencing Society, Carnegie, Victoria, Australia; 1885, translation 2021.

Roux, Johann Wilhelm; Manual for the Art of Fencing According to Mathematical and Physical Principles; translation by Tobias Zimmerman; [fencing manual]; Academic Bookstore’s Publishing, Jena, Gotha, Germany; 1808.

Roux, Friedrich August Wilhelm Ludwig; Die Kreussler'sche Stossfechtschule for Use by Academies and Military Schools Based on a Mathematical Basis; translation by Christopher Treichel; [fencing manual]; Druck and Verlag von Friedrich Mauke, Jena, Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, Germany; translated and reprinted by Christopher Treichel; 1849, reprinted 2016. 

Sanz, Adelardo; patent application for the first pattern of the Spanish foil; [patent application]; Negociado de Industria y Registro, Industrial y Commercial, Madrid, Spain, no date.

Scorza, Giuseppe Rosaroll, and Pietro Grisetti; The Science of Fencing; translation by Christopher Holzman; [fencing manual]; Milano, Italy; 1803; reprinted by Christopher Holzman, Wichita, Kansas, United States of America; 2018.

Copyright 2022 by Walter G. Green III

Parts of the Weapon - Foil by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

W.3. Balance Point of the Blade

A properly balanced weapon offers significant advantages to the fencer who uses it.  Blade movement is faster and more responsive to the hand, with improved control and accuracy.  The place on the blade at which the weight of the inner, middle, and outer sections of the blade will equal the weight of the pommel, tang, grip, and guard is determined by the simple test of balancing the blade on a fulcrum, typically the index finger.  This is the balance point or the center of gravity.  The blade becomes more and more point heavy as the balance point moves toward the tip.  A similar but opposite weight shift occurs as the balance point moves toward the guard.  In the first case more work is required to move the blade and to control its trajectory.  In the second case, as weight moves to the guard, the lighter blade may become very difficult to control.

One might expect that balance would be considered a critical issue for the fencer.  It is relatively easy to alter the balance of the blade by changing the pommel and/or the grip.  However, less than half the fencing manuals sampled for this post addressed the balance point on the blade for foil and sabre.  Only the Italian sources for the spada provide a center of gravity that applies to the epee.  The following are the sources that addressed the balance point:    

1884:  Maestro Masaniello Parise specifies that the balance point of the spada should be 4 fingers from the guard in his treatise that became the standard for the Military Fencing Masters School at Rome.  The same center of gravity applies to the sabre.

1885: Giordano Rossi, a practitioner of the Radaellian School, specifies that the spada should balance in the double strong of the blade, approximately 4 fingers from the guard.  Similarly, he advocates that the sabre blade should balance at the same point, in the double strong 4 fingers from the guard.

1886:  Maestro Adelardo Sanz specifies that the balance point in sabre should be approximately 3 fingers from the guard.

1891:  Alfred Hutton, a prolific advocate for military training with the sword, describes the ideal balance point of the foil as being on the blade just above the guard.

1892:  Maitre Louis Rondelle suggests that a foil is correctly balance when the balance point is approximately 1 inch from the guard.

1904: Maestro Generoso Pavese, a graduate of the Military Fencing Masters School of Rome, places the foil balance point at 2.5 inches (4 fingers) from the guard.  The same measurement is used for sabre.

1905:  Professor Leopold Van Humbeek, a Belgian trained fencing master, taught an Italian based style of sabre fencing in the Netherlands.  He specified that the balance point on the blade should be a few centimeters from the guard.

1912:  Maestro Salvatore Pecoraro and Maestro Carlo Pessina suggest that two factors are key in the balance of the sabre: maximum ability to manage the blade which is achieved by the center of gravity being closest to the hand, and power in the blow which is achieved by the center of gravity being as far away from the hand as possible.  As a result they cite the range of balance points in various texts as being from four fingers from the guard to right against the guard.   They suggest 2 fingers from the guard as a reasonable compromise. 

1920: Maitre Ricardo Manrique, trained in the French School in Cuba, describes the foil balance point as approximately 1 inch from the guard.

1934: Maitre Felix Grave, a Master of the Academy of Arms and the Academy of the Epee of Paris, specifies that the balance point of the foil should be 15 millimeters from the guard. 

1936:  Maestro Luigi Barbasetti sets the balance point for the sabre as 5 centimeters (approximately 2 inches) from the guard.

1941:  The Breckenridges, father and son French School students of Maitre Francois Darrieulat, define the foil balance point as immediately in front of the guard so that with a #5 blade the weapon is slightly point heavy.

1948: Maitre d'Armes Clovis Deladrier, a Belgian trained master, uses different criteria for the balance of the foil.  In a normal guard position, the foil is properly balanced if the tip of the foil slowly lowers when all of the fingers except the index finger (which serves as a pivot point) are detached from the grip.  For epee, his primary focus about balance is on the impact of the off-center bell mounting on stability, not the relationship of the blade to balance.  For sabre, the test is similar to that of foil - when the last three fingers are released the tip will drop slowly.

As Maestri Pecoraro and Pessina remarked in 1912, the range of balance points runs from a maximum of 4 fingers to immediately in front of the guard.  Allowing for the fact that a "finger" is a measurement that will vary with the anatomy of the fencer, we are using Pavese's equivalent of 2.5 inches for 4 fingers, we can develop the data below.  We do not know whether the finger measurement is with or without a glove, but we assume it is without.  Note that it is important to use the inch or centimeter equivalents as increases in hand size over the years could push the balance point out into the point heavy range.

Range:  approximately 2.5 inches, approximately 6.35 centimeters - 4 fingers (Pavese's inch equivalent) to immediately close to the guard (we use a 0 centimeter value for this). 

Distribution (including both foil and sabre as the two are routinely describe as identical in the sample sources):

• 4 fingers (approximately 2.5 inches, approximately 6.35 centimeters) - 6
• 3 fingers (approximately 2 inches, approximately 5 centimeters) - 2
• 2 fingers (approximately 1.25 inches, approximately 3.2 centimeters) - 1
• 1 inch (approximately 2.5 centimeters) - 2
• a few centimeters from the guard (an imprecise measurement, our assumption is that this is less than 1 inch or less than 2.5 centimeters - for calculations we assume that value as being 2 centimeters) - 1
• 15 milimeters (1.5 centimeters) - 1
• on the blade just above the guard (0 centimeters) - 2

Mean (average): approximately 3.99 centimeters or 1.57 inches or 2.5 fingers.

Mode (most frequently occurring value): 4 fingers from the guard (approximately 2.5 inches, approximately 6.35 centimeters).  This value may be skewed by the size and distribution of the sample in terms of French or Italian sources.

Sources:

Barbasetti, Luigi; The Art of the Sabre and the Epee; [fencing manual]; E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America; 1937.

Breckenridge, Scott D. and Breckenridge, Scott D., Jr.; Sword Play: Based on the French School of the Foil; [fencing manual]; A. S. Barnes and Company, New York, New York, United States of America; 1941.

Deladrier, Clovis; Modern Fencing; [fencing manual]; United States Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland, United States of America; 1948.

Grave, Felix; Fencing Comprehensive; [fencing manual]; Hutchinson and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1934.

Hutton, Alfred; The Swordsman: A Manual of Fence for the Foil, Sabre, and Bayonet; [fencing manual]; H. Grevel & Company, London, United Kingdom; reprint by The Naval and Military Press, Uckfield, East Sussex, United Kingdom; 1891, reprint no date.

Manrique, Ricardo Enrique; Fencing Foil Class Work Illustrated; [fencing manual]; American Sports Publishing Company, New York, New York, United States of America, 1920.

Parise, Masaniello; Treatise on the Fencing of the Sword and Sabre; in The Roman-Neapolitan School of Fencing: The Collected Works of Masaniello Parise, Maestro di Scherma; translation by Christopher A. Holzman; [collected works]; Christopher A. Holzman, Wichita, Kansas, United States of America; 1884 reprinted as a collected work 2015.

Pavese, Generoso; Foil and Sabre Fencing (Scherma di Spada e Sciabola); [fencing manual]; Press of King Brothers, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America; 1905.

Pecoraro, Salvatore and Carlo Pessina; Sabre Fencing: A Theoretical-Practical Treatise; translation by Christopher A. Holzman; [fencing manual]; Christopher A. Holzman, Wichita, Kansas, United States of America; 1912 reprinted 2016.

Rondelle, Louis; Foil and Sabre: A Grammar of Fencing in Detailed Lessons for Professor and Pupil; [fencing manual]; Estes and Lauriat, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America; 1892.

Rossi, Giordano; Theoretical-Practical Manual for Sword and Sabre Fencing; translation by Sebastian Seager; [fencing manual];  Milan, Italy, translated edition by the Melbourne Fencing Society, Carnegie, Victoria, Australia; 1885, translation 2021. 

Sanz, Adelardo [translation by John Jakelsky]; Saber Fencing and Considerations About the Duel; [fencing manual]; first published in Spanish by Imprenta de Fortanet, Madrid, Spain; 1886; translated edition published by John Jakelsky, Xativa, Valencia, Spain; 2020.

van Humbeek, Leopold J. M. P.; Manual for Fencing with the Sabre; translation by Reinier van Nort; [fencing manual]; Amsterdam, Netherlands; translated and reprinted by Reinier van Noort, Hagan, Norway; 1905 reprinted 2017.

Copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III

Balance Point of the Blade by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

W.2. Additions to the Number of Sections of the Blade

In post W.1. (June 2019) we discussed how the blade was subdivided in classical fencing into sections that had significance for the fencer's technique in both offense and defense.  As is common in research, further work on this topic and access to new sources has increased what we know, and therefore this serves as an addition to the previous work.

Our previous examination of divisions included 2 equal divisions, 2 unequal divisions, and 3 divisions.   This post addresses 4 or more divisions although we will note one variant to the 3 division approach.

• Luigi Barbasetti (1932) divides the blade into three sections: the Point, foible, and forte.  Few of the texts consulted specifically mentioned the point as a distinct part of the blade, and Barbasetti does not indicate the length of the point, which would seem to be just the very outer portion of the blade, the nail head and the immediate supporting blade.

The German school of thrust fencing describes the blade as having 4 sections:

• Johann Wilhelm Roux (1808) identifies the four equal sections as (from the guard toward he point) as Full Strong, Half Strong, Half Weak, and Full Weak.
• Friedrich Augustus Wilhelm Ludwig Roux (1849) makes a minor change in the names of the sections (although this may be simply a difference between two translations) to Total Strong, Half Strength, Half Weak, and Total Weak.

These two sources fall before the classical period but their content was applied well into the classical period.

We have encountered one description of a division of the blade into 5 sections:

• Giordano Rossi, in his 1885 update to Radaellian School, divides the blade into 5 equal  sections (from the guard to the point) as Double Strong, Strong, Middle, Weak, and Double Weak. 

Finally, we have 8 sections: 

• Giuseppe Rosaroll Scorza and Pietro Grissetti's 1803 volume, a very well-regarded text which informed classical period fencing in Italy, includes an 8 section division of the blade.  This starts with an initial division of the blade into two halves, separated at the center.  From the guard the progression is defined by degree points at Double Strong (1), Strong (2), Less Strong (3), Center (4), Less Weak (5), Weak (6), Double Weak (7), and Point (8).  The difference between the degree points of the fencer and the opponent predicts the relative strength of each blade, although stopping to do the calculation in a bout might not be the best use of your time. 

Sources:

Barbasetti, Luigi; The Art of the Foil; [fencing manual]; E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America; 1932.

Roux, Johann Wilhelm; Manual for the Art of Fencing According to Mathematical and Physical Principles; translation by Tobias Zimmerman; [fencing manual]; Academic Bookstore’s Publishing, Jena, Gotha, Germany; 1808.

Roux, Friedrich August Wilhelm Ludwig; Die Kreussler'sche Stossfechtschule for Use by Academies and Military Schools Based on a Mathematical Basis; translation by Christopher Treichel; [fencing manual]; Druck and Verlag von Friedrich Mauke, Jena, Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, Germany; 1849; reprinted by Christopher Treichel; 2016.

Rossi, Giordano; Theoretical-Practical Manual for Sword and Sabre Fencing; translation by Sebastian Seager; [fencing manual];  Milan, Italy, translated edition by the Melbourne Fencing Society, Carnegie, Victoria, Australia; 1885, translation 2021. 

Scorza, Giuseppe Rosaroll, and Pietro Grisetti; The Science of Fencing; translation by Christopher Holzman; [fencing manual]; Milano, Italy; 1803; reprinted by Christopher Holzman, Wichita, Kansas, United States of America; 2018.

Copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III

Additions to the Number of Sections of the Blade by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

C.7. Stonehenge and Wood's Foil Curriculum

In 1863 "Stonehenge" (a pseudonym) and the Reverend J. G. Wood published a short introductory manual that included fencing, the broadsword, and archery, one of a series of such books found in the late 1800s and early 1900s that addressed a number of sports or pastimes.  The curriculum they describe is for the foil and is a simple one at approximately the intermediate level.  We include this in our technical blog because this book is not a specialist text, but rather is the sort of general interest text that could survive and inform amateur trainers well into the classical period.

In 1884 a short introductory manual that included chapters on "How to Fence," "Broadsword Exercise," "Archery," "Hurdle Racing," "Vaulting with the Pole, or Pole-Leaping," "Throwing the Hammer," and "Putting the Shot" was published.  This volume is attributed to Aaron A. Warford, the author of a number of how-to books.  Warford's fencing chapter is identical in text and illustrations to Stonehenge and Wood's.  

In other words, Warford appears to have plagiarized Stonehenge and Wood's work.   This was not uncommon at that time - modern concepts of intellectuial property were not well developed.  At this point we cannot be sure that Stonehenge and Wood had not lifted some of their text from another, earlier source.  Lawson suggests that at least the broadsword material was not original.  The unintended consequence was that this curriculum certainly survived into the classical period.

The Stonehenge and Wood curriculum consists of the following elements:

(1)  The Guard

• (1a)  First Position
• (1b)  Second Position

(2)  Footwork

• (2a)  Advance
• (2b)  Retreat
• (2c)  Lunge
• (2d) Recover

(3)  Engagement

• (3a)  Inside Engagement
• (3b)  Outside Engagement

(4)  The Parades (Parries)

• (4a)  Simple Parries

1. (4a1)  Prime
2. (4a2)  Quarte
3. (4a3)  Tierce
4. (4a4)  Quarte over the Arm
5. (4a5)  Seconde
6. (4a6)  Demi-Circle

• (4b)  Contre-Parades

1. (4b1)  Contre de Quarte
2. (4b2)  Contre de Tierce
3. (4b3)  Contre de Seconde
4. (4b4)  Contre de Cercle

(5)  Attacks

• (5a)  Simple Attacks (all can be parried by one or more simple parries)

1. (5a1)  Straight Thrust
2. (5a2)  Disengagement
3. (5a3)  One-Two
4. (5a4)  Beat and Thrust
5. (5a5)  Beat and Disengagement
6. (5a6)  Cut Over the Point
7. (5a7)  Cut Over and Disengagement

• (5b)  Double

(6)  Feints

(7)  The Assault

Sources:

"Stonehenge" and Wood, J. G.; Archery, Fencing, and Broadsword; [multiple sports manual]; Routledge, Warne, and Routledge, London, United Kingdom, reprint by Kirk Lawson, unknown place; 1863, reprint unknown date.

Warford, Aaron A.; How To Fence; [multiple sports manual]; Frank Tousey, Publisher, New York, New York, United States of America; 1884.

Copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III.

Stonehenge and Wood's Foil Curriculum by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

E10.2.1.5. de Vauresmont's Epee Parry of Quinte

P. Garcet de Vauresmont authored a short fencing manual covering technique and other matters for foil, epee, and sabre, published in Paris in 1912.  In that manual the standard parries for epee are discussed, and in two cases, sixte (sixth) and quinte (fifth), illustrated.  And there lies a point of interest.  De Vauresmont is not a widely cited name in period fencing manuals, but his manual contained a foreword by Professor Ruze, then Vice-President of the Academie d'Epee.  That is one of two reasons that the illustration of an epee parry in quinte is interesting.

The first reason is that de Vauresmont illustrates only two of the six parries that he mentions.  Of these, quinte, is problematic.  De Vauresmont himself states that quinte is of no use in almost any fencing situation. Claude La Marche is more detailed in his critique, pointing out that quinte is a dangerous and bad parry because once committed to it, a follow-up parry to defeat a compound attack is difficult to execute.  The 1908 French Ministry of War regulations describe quinte as not recommended, because it took the blade into the low line, but did not remove it from the line of the body.  So why did de Vauresmont select this picture for inclusion, especially in light of the endorsement of his work by an officer of the Academie d'Epee of Paris?  Or is this one more case of a publisher inserting a picture that the author did not intend?

The second reason the illustration is interesting is that it allows reconstruction of how a quinte parry was executed from the straight arm.   De Vauresmont pictures the epee guard as essentially a straight arm guard.  When we come to the parry of quinte, the picture can best be described as grainy, the blade position is difficult to determine, but it is clear that is executed from the straight arm.  He describes the hand position of fifth as with the nails underneath, in other words, in the hand in pronation.   This is consistent with La Marche's critique of the power delivered by the parry.  

The 1877 French Ministry of War manual indicates that the action in foil is performed against an attack into the inside line by (1) turning the hand with the nails up, (2) crossing above the opponent's blade, and (3) beating the blade down into the low line.  The blade, wrist, and forearm end up horizontal to the ground and perpendicular to the fencer's body.  The riposte (4) is direct to the high line.  This appears to be consistent with de Vauresmont's picture if the technique was executed from a straight arm guard.  

Sometimes the small and not well-known text provides insights into technique that answer questions - sometimes they suggest more questions.  But a thicker book, and a well-known reputation, does not mean that other texts are not worth reading.  So try de Vauresment's parry quinte.  Is it more powerful with the rotation into pronation or with a rotation into supination?  Does it leave you vulnerable or does the strength of the action leave you vulnerable?  Should it be part of your straight arm epee technique? 

Sources:   

de Vauresmont, P. Garcet; L’Escrime: Fleuret, Epee, et Sabre; [fencing manual]; Editions Nilsson, Paris; 1912.  Reprinted by Hachette Livre {BnF; no place; no date; under the misspelled author’s name of P. Garcet de Vauremont. 

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing Manual; translation by Chris Slee; [fencing manual]; reprint by Long Edge Press, no place; 1877 reprinted 2017.

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing: Foil, Epee, Sabre, Theory, Method, Regulations; translation by the Amateur Fencers League of America; [fencing manual]; Alex Taylor and Company, New York, New York, reprinted by Rose City Books, Portland Oregon, United States of America; 1908 reprinted 1908, Rose City Book reprint no date.

La Marche, Claude; The Dueling Sword; translation by Brian House; [fencing manual]; Ernest Flammarion, Paris, France; 1898; translated and reprinted by Paladin Press, Boulder, Colorado, United States of America; 2009.

Copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III

de Vauresmont's Epee Parry of Quinte by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

C.6. Siebenhaar's Sabre Curriculum

Sergeant Fencing Master Christian Siebenhaar was the founder of the relatively short-lived Dutch Method, a distinctly nationalistic school of fencing that was restricted to the Netherlands in the period approximately 1858 to approximately 1888.  Siebenhaar's Manual for the Instruction in the Art of Fencing (the 1861 edition) included the Sword (which in the illustrations appears to be a foil), Sabre, Long Stick, and the Rifle (the bayonet).

The Dutch Method was distinguished by two elements.  The first was a vocabulary all in Dutch, so that Dutch fencers would not have to use French terms.  The second was a rather unusual method of fencing in which the fencers took turns, mobility was largely restricted to the lunge, and there was a somewhat odd target (a potato or apple fixed to the uniform).

The sabre curriculum included the following techniques (note that the descriptions assume a right handed fencer).  The introduction of each technique depended on its placement in a series of 3 sections, each composed of 8 lessons, and although plates illustrate key elements of the techniques, there is only limited discussion of how the techniques were executed.  

(1)  The Fighting Position

(2)  Hand Positions (all techniques can be executed with the hand in any of the three positions)

• (2a)  With the hand in supination
• (2b)  With the hand in pronation
• (2c)  With the hand inverted thumb down

(3)  Footwork

• (3a)  Lunge
• (3b)  Double pass forward (this is the complete modern pass ending in a normal guard position)
• (3c)  Double pass backwards (this is the complete modern pass ending in a normal guard position)
• (3d)  Withdrawal of the right foot

(4)  The Cuts

• (4a)  To the head with lunge
• (4b)  To the left cheek without lunge
• (4c)  To the right cheek
• (4d)  To the belly with lunge
• (4e)  To the right thigh with lunge
• (4f)  To the foot with lunge

(5)  Point Thrust

(6)  The Parries

• (6a)  Against the cut to the head 
• (6b)  Against the left cheek cut
• (6c)  Against the right cheek cut
• (6d)  High left against the thrust

(7)  Compound Attacks

• (7a)  Feint cut to the head, cut to the head with lunge
• (7b)  Feint cut to the head, cut to the right thigh
• (7c)  Feint cut to the head, feint cut to the right side, cut to the belly with lunge
• (7d)  Feint cut to the right cheek, cut to the belly with lunge
• (7e)  Feint cut to the right cheek, feint cut to the left cheek, cut to the side with lunge
• (7f)  (Double pass forward) Feint cut to the right cheek, feint cut to the left cheek, cut to the arm with lunge
• (7g)  Feint cut to the right cheek, feint cut to the left cheek, feint cut to the side, cut to the head with lunge
• (7h)  Feint cut to the left cheek, cut to the right cheek 
• (7i)  Feint cut to the left cheek, cut to the right cheek without lunge
• (7j)  Feint cut to the left cheek, cut to the right side with lunge
• (7k)  Feint cut to the left cheek, cut to the right side without lunge
• (7l)  Feint cut to the left cheek, feint cut to the right cheek, cut to the belly with lunge
• (7m)  Feint cut to the left cheek, feint cut to the side, cut to the head with lunge
• (7n)  Feint cut under the arm, cut to the head with lunge
• (7o)  Feint cut under the arm, feint cut to the head, cut to the belly with lunge
• (7p)  Feint cut to the belly, cut to the right side with lunge
• (7q)  Feint cut to the belly, feint cut to the right side, cut to the head with lunge
• (7r)  Feint cut to the belly, feint cut to the right side, feint cut to the head, cut to the right thigh with lunge
• (7s)  Feint cut to the left thigh, cut to the right thigh with lunge
• (7t)  Feint cut to the right thigh, cut to the head with lunge
• (7u)  Feint thrust to the belly, cut to the head with lunge
• (7v)  Feint thrust to the belly, feint cut to the head, thrust to the belly with lunge
• (7w)  Feint thrust left, feint thrust right, and thrust left with lunge

(8)  Compound Parries

• (8a)  Against the feint cut to the left cheek, and then cut to the right cheek
• (8b)  Against the feint cut to the left cheek, and then cut to the right thigh
• (8c)  Against the feint cut to the left cheek, and then cut to the right side
• (8d)  (Double pass backward) against the feint cut to the left cheek, and then cut to the right thigh
• (8e)  Against the feint cut to the head, and then cut to the right thigh

(9)  Attack-Parry Sequence

• (9a)  Cut to the right foot with lunge, parry the cut to the head (done with a withdrawal of the forward foot)

Source:

Siebenhaar, Christiaan; Manual for the Instruction in the Art of Fencing; Third Improved Printing; translation by Reinier van Nort; [fencing manual]; The Heirs Doorman, The Hague, Netherlands; translated and reprinted by Reiner van Nort, Hagan, Norway; 1861 reprinted 2017.

Copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III

Siebenhaar's Sabre Curriculum by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

21.1.3.a. Pinto Martin's Lunge

Mestre d'armas Antonio Domingos Pinto Martins served as Fencing Master to the King of Portugal and to the schools of the Navy and Army.  The Manual de Esgrima was written as an effort to translate the manuals of the French Army, but to also provide a more detailed description of technique and applicable exercises to compensate for the limited training opportunities for military fencing instructors.  His manual was approved in 1893 by a committee of officers appointed by the Minister of War as being superior to  other Portugese and foreign fencing manuals presented for their examination, and was ordered for general distribution and adoption.  

Occasionally, in reading a previously unread fencing manual, one encounters a gem, an unusual approach to a technique or tactic, that has not been encountered before.  Pinto Martins does not disappoint in this.  There, starting at Figure 13, is a different way to execute the lunge in the following four steps:

Prolog - Pinto Martins starts with the fencer in either Firm Position (the equivalent of first Position) or in Guard Position.  The descriptions of these positions are common ones, except that the line drawings accompanying the text shows what appears to be a slight backwards lean to the torso when on guard that may well indicate an uneven distribution of weight to the rear leg.  The line drawings are of good quality, plentiful, and correspond to the descriptions in the text.

First tempo (yes, tempo ... it appears that in this case tempo is used as a guide to sequencing the movements, not in relation to fencing time) - extend the weapon arm, with the hand slightly above shoulder height, the hand in supination.  This blade position is not an absolute rule - it may vary with the type of attack being delivered.

Second tempo - simultaneously lean the torso forward and to the outside line.  This is a deliberate shift to meet two objectives:

• Penetration - the forward lean increases the distance the attack penetrates into the opponent's defense.
• Loading for movement - Pinto Martins suggests that this position on completion of the lunge "powerfully aids the return to guard, because as soon as the right foot hits the ground, the torso attempts to return to its vertical position due to the reaction of the extensor muscles of the right leg and thigh whilst the ones of the lower back react to the sudden movement and, as a result, transmit the motion to the whole body; matching the retreat of the torso with the pressure exerted by the foot to return to the guard, the right side of the body is relieved by this impulse ..." (p. 17).  

Third tempo - extend the non-weapon leg driving off the forward portion of the sole of the rear shoe.  This appears to be a small, partial roll of the back foot and is depicted in other illustrations in the book.  The forward foot remains in place.  Pinto Martins suggests that the penetration of the lunge would be reduced without the leg extension and that the rear foot would be dragged forward by the weight of the torso, rendering the recovery to guard more difficult.

Fourth tempo - the weapon foot moves forward close to the surface, but without contact, to approximately twice the width of the feet in the guard position.  It lands on the toes and ball of the foot, and finally on the heel. Simultaneously the rear arm is lowered with the palm of the open hand facing to the inside and maintaining approximately 15 centimeters (6 inches) of separation from the leg. 

The way the foot lands has two objectives.  

• Movement control - it prevents the foot sliding forward which would make recovery more difficult. 
• Safety - Pinto Martins suggests that landing on the heel often causes concussions on the brain and may cause "synovial spills on the right knee" (p. 20).  This is very curious.  Although today we recognize the potential for micro-concussions, they have not been linked to the fencing lunge that lands on the heel of the forward foot, and reported or observed concussion events in modern national and international fencing appear to result from collisions in corps-a-corps or direct blows to the mask with the guard.  This may be linked to an older practice of the front foot actually stamping the ground to make the landing of the lunge resound on the floor.  Prevost notes that by 1889 this practice had been abandoned in all good clubs in France and was considered vulgar.

It is important to note that this execution of the lunge is does not appear to be a common contemporary French technique.  The French Ministry of War regulations of 1877 (Slee translation) and 1908 (including the Amateur Fencers League of America translation), Prevost, and Rondelle all stress the essentially simultaneous action of the front and rear legs.  With the exception of Prevost the front foot lands flat; he specifies that it must land on the heel. 

Sources:

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing Manual; translation by Chris Slee; [fencing manual]; reprint by Long Edge Press, no place; 1877 reprinted 2017.

France.  Ministere de la Guerre; Reglement d’Escrime (Fleuret – Epee – Sabre); Librairie Militaire Berger-Levrault & Co., Paris, France; 1909.

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing: Foil, Epee, Sabre, Theory, Method, Regulations; translation by the Amateur Fencers League of America; [fencing manual]; Alex Taylor and Company, New York, New York, reprinted by Rose City Books, Portland Oregon, United States of America; 1908, reprinted 1908, Rose City Book reprint no date.

Pinto Martins, Antonio Domingos;  Manual de Esgrima para Uso do Exercitio; translation by Rui Carlos Pinto Ferreira; [fencing manual]; Livraria de Antonio Maria Pereira, Lisbon, Portugal 1895; translation and reprint by Espada Negra HEMA Study Group, 2017.  Note that the Portugese to English translation contains a number of terms that appear to be literal translation of the Portugese and not a translation to the equivalent, common usage, fencing terms.

Pollock, Walter H., F. C. Grove, and Camille Prevost; Fencing; 2^nd edition; in the Badminton Library of Sports and Pastimes; [fencing manual]; Longman’s, Green, and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1890.

Rondelle, Louis; Foil and Sabre: A Grammar of Fencing in Detailed Lessons for Professor and Pupil; [fencing manual]; Estes and Lauriat, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America; 1892.

Copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III

Pinto Martin's Lunge by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

B.4. Assaults, Loose Play, Free Play, and Bouts

Note:  This post specifically addresses English language fencing terminology.   

What happens when two fencers decide to fence?  What do we call the ensuing combat?  

One answer can be found in Book 1 - The Technical Rules of the IWAS Wheelchair Fencing Rules for Fencing.  The International Wheelchair and Amputee Sports federation defines two forms of combat by paired individuals:

(1)  "A friendly combat between two fencers is called an assault."

(2)  "When the score of such an assault is kept to determine a result, it is called a bout."

This is a modern definition of assaults and bouts that has been in use for an extended period of time in the official international and United States rules for the sport.  However, it is worth asking the question: where did this interpretation of the terminology come from?

As an aside it is worth noting that the index of both the USA Fencing Rules of Fencing and the index of the Federation Internationale d'Escrime's Technical Rules list rule t.2 - in the USA Fencing rulebook the listing includes "Assaults and Bouts" but there is no actual text for rule t.2.  The Federation Internationale d'Escrime index lists t.2 with no indication of its intended topic.  That is why we are using the wheelchair rules as the basis for this discussion.  Apparently bouts and assaults are no longer to be distinguished or defined in the rules.

But have the Assault and the Bout always been defined the way noted above?  The answer is no.  When we look at the published sources, we see:

• Prevost's 1890 Fencing - refers to both the "assault" and "free play" as training activities.
• Colmore-Dunn's 1891 Dunn's Fencing Instructor - identifies two uses of the term "Assault," the first when spectators are present (page 87), and the second as "loose play" in the fencing club (page 91).
• Hutton's 1891 The Swordsman - includes rules for the "Assault" in which a jury assesses touches and fencers may be handicapped in the modern sense of being given a certain number of touches to make the contest more even (pages 123-124).  He also uses the term for "loose play" in the club (page 61).
• Rondelle's 1892 Foil and Sabre - includes a set of rules for amateur competition that mention the term "bout" (page 176) but refers to the role of the jury in conducting the "assault" (page 177).  An extensive discussion of assaults (pages 169-175) leaves one with the clear impression that touches count.
• Pavese's 1905 Foil and Sabre Fencing - in the "assault" there should always be a referee who, among other duties records the score in points (page 88). 
• The French Ministry of War 1908 Fencing (translation distributed by the Amateur Fencer's League of America) - both "bout" and "assault" are used, but in the context that the assault is a complete fencing process of which the bout is part (pages 30-32).
• Castello's 1933 The Theory and Practice of Fencing - does not refer to assaults, and uses the term "bout" widely in the work.
• Maitre Felix Grave's 1934 Fencing Comprehensive - the combats in a pool are referred to as "fights" (page 90-95) and the President of the Jury is directed to "direct the assaults and announce the result of each fight ..." (page 95).
• The Amateur Fencing Association's 1937 Rules for Competitions - "bouts" are not specifically mentioned; the term "assault" is used for the number of combats in a pool in a competition and in terms of the responsibility of the President to manage the combat (pages 12 and 30-37).
• Hett's 1939 Fencing - discusses practice "assaults" to develop specific defensive skills (page 89) and "loose play" for general training (pages 96-99). 
• Vince's 1940 Fencing - "assaults" are not mentioned; combat between two individuals is a "bout."
• The Amateur Fencers League of America 1940 Fencing Rules - "A bout is a contest between two individuals, and may or may not be part of a match." (page 28).
• Deladrier's 1948 Modern Fencing - "assaults" are not mentioned; combat between two individuals is a "bout."
• Lidstone's 1952 Fencing - a discussion of "loose play" clearly indicates that it is a form of training in which the manner of making the hit is the important factor (pages 160-162 and 168).  The terms "assault," "bout," and "competition" are used interchangeably depending on context.
• The Amateur Fencers League of America 1957 Fencing Rules and Manual - "Friendly combat between two fencers is called 'loose play.'  When a score is kept of such combat to determine a result, the contest is called a 'bout'." (page 2)
• The Amateur Fencers League of America 1965 Fencing Rules and Manual - "Friendly combat between two fencers is called an 'assault.'  When the score of such an assault is kept to determine a result it is called a 'bout'." (page 14)
• The Amateur Fencers League of America 1968 Fencing Rules - "Friendly combat between two fencers is called an 'assault.'  When the score of such an assault is kept to determine a result it is called a 'bout'." (page 14)
• The Amateur Fencers League of America 1974 Fencing Rules for Competitions - "Friendly competition between fencers is called 'free play' ['assault']; when the score is kept in a competition, it is called a 'bout' ['match']." (page 13)

What can we determine from these sources?  It should be noted that this is not an exhaustive coverage of all possible English language sources and that a more comprehensive study may be needed to more accurately identify the dates of transitions between terms.

(1)  Up to the general cessation of fencing for World War II "assault" clearly has the meaning of a bout between two fencers, without a differentiation as to whether touches were counted, points were award for style, or a winner announced.

(2)  "Loose play" appears early in the classical period, disappears from the record in the late 1950s and the middle of the 1960s.  "Free play," as an equivalent of "loose play," appears briefly in the 1970s.

(3)  The "assault" as purely a friendly form of combat and the "bout" as the assault with a score kept emerges well after the end of the classical period. 

Why do we have such variation?  One factor is that until recently the formal rules for fencing were written in French by the Federation Internationale d'Escrime and then translated into English by the Amateur Fencing Association of the United Kingdom.  Then these rules were adopted (or not adopted) by the Amateur Fencers League of America.  In the process there have been, at times, changes in the meaning of the text.

Romantic views of classical fencing have also influenced how the terms are used in modern classical fencing.  The ideal of an assault at arms in which touches are not counted, graceful precise fencing is rewarded by the applause of the spectators, and everyone adjourns at appropriate times for champagne and strawberries is a modern ideal that was honored primarily by its absence from period events.  Accounts of Senac's and Monstery's individual matches and accounts and videos of exhibition matches after World War I show that the participants, newspaper fencing correspondents, the president and jury, and those who bet on the outcomes were fully aware of the number of touches scored by each participant. 

Sources:

Amateur Fencers League of America; Fencing Rules; editor Miguel A. de Capriles; [rules book]; Amateur Fencers League of America, New York, New York, United States of America; 1940.

Amateur Fencers League of America; Fencing Rules and Manual; editor Miguel A. de Capriles; [rules book]; Amateur Fencers League of America, New York, New York, United States of America; 1957.

Amateur Fencers League of America; Fencing Rules and Manual; editor Jose R. de Capriles; [rules book]; Amateur Fencers League of America, West New York, New Jersey, United States of America; 1965.

Amateur Fencers League of America; Fencing Rules; [rules book]; Amateur Fencers League of America, West New York, New Jersey, United States of America; 1968.

Amateur Fencers League of America; Fencing Rules; translation by Joseph Byrnes; [rules book]; Amateur Fencers League of America, Westfield, New Jersey; 1974.

Castello, Julio Martinez; The Theory and Practice of Fencing; [fencing manual]; Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, New York, United States of America; 1937.

Colmore Dunn, H. A.; Dunn's Fencing Instructor; [fencing manual]; Street and Smith Publishers, New York, New York, United States of America; 1891.

Deladrier, Clovis; Modern Fencing; [fencing manual]; United States Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland, United States of America; 1948

Federation Internationale d'Escrime; Technical Rules; [Internet page] at https://static.fie.org/uploads/25/127073-technical%20rules%20ang.pdf ; January 2021.

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing: Foil, Epee, Sabre, Theory, Method, Regulations; translation by the Amateur Fencers League of America; [fencing manual]; Alex Taylor and Company, New York, New York, reprinted by Rose City Books, Portland Oregon, United States of America; 1908, reprinted 1908, Rose City Book reprint no date. 

Grave, Felix; Fencing Comprehensive; [fencing manual]; Hutchinson and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1934.

Hett, Geoffrey V.; Fencing; [fencing manual]; Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd., London, United Kingdom; 1939.

Hutton, Alfred; The Swordsman; [fencing manual]; H. Grevel and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1891.

International Wheelchair and Amputee Sports Federation; IWAS Wheelchair Fencing: Rules for Competition; [Internet page] at https://wheelchairfencing.iwasf.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/1-IWF-Technical-Rules-Jan-2020.pdf; January 2020.

Lidstone, R. A.; Fencing; [fencing manual]; H., F. & G. Witherby, London, United Kingdom; 1952.

Monstery, Thomas Hoyer; Self-Defense for Gentlemen and Ladies; edited by Ben Miller; [combatives manual]; Blue Snake Books, Berkeley, California, United States of America; 2015.

Pavese, Generoso; Foil and Sabre Fencing; [fencing manual]; Press of King Brothers, Baltimore, Maryland; 1905. 

Pollock, Walter, H., F. C. Grove, and Camille Prevost; Fencing; 2^nd edition; in the Badminton Library of Sports and Pastimes; [fencing manual]; Longman’s, Green, and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1890.

Rondelle, Louis; Foil and Sabre; [fencing manual]; Estes and Lauriat, Boston, Massachusetts, 1892.

The Amateur Fencing Association; Rules for Competition; translation by C. L. de Beaumont; [rules book]; The Amateur Fencing Association, London, United Kingdom; 1937.

USA Fencing, Fencing Rules; [Internet page] at https://cdn2.sportngin.com/attachments/document/f840-2248253/2020-08_USA_Fencing_Rules.pdf#_ga=2.77349973.1986710130.1623850594-1576243361.1610675389; accessed 15 June 2021.

Vince, Joseph; Fencing; [fencing manual]; A. S. Barnes and Company, New York, New York, United States of America; 1940.

Copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III

Assaults, Loose Play, Free Play, and Bouts by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.